Hi Monica
Good point - I should have added text to indicate that this would be a
runtime exception. Perhaps this could be discussed and added to the
proposal on the call tomorrow.
I don't think this would be a problem with an implicit choice, as one of
a set of events would need to occur as outlined by the different choice
paths. The main reason for the change is otherwise it is unclear in some
situations whether the choice should be considered an optional activity,
due to a subsequent activity (e.g. interaction) occurring or whether in
fact that is illegal. By enforcing the fact that a choice path must
occur, then the occurrance of a subsequent interaction following the
choice would definitely indicate an illegal interaction.
Regards
Gary
Monica J. Martin wrote:
> Gary Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> Proposal for issue: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3103
>>
>>
>> Section 6.1.3 Choice
>>
>> First para, change SHOULD to MUST.
>>
>> "The /choice/ ordering structure enables specifying that only one of
>> two or more activities (as defined by two or more Activity-Notations)
>> SHOULD be performed. "
>> becomes
>> "The /choice/ ordering structure enables specifying that only one of
>> two or more activities (as defined by two or more Activity-Notations)
>> MUST be performed. "
>
> Per the issue Gary, what happens when the conditions are not met
> (particularly if we change to MUST)? I see not verbiage talking about
> this. What about implicit choice?
>
>
>
>